Income Tax Law – Satisfaction Note under Section 158BD – Requirement and Timing – Appeals challenging the requirement for and timing of the satisfaction note under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Supreme Court holds that a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before transmitting records to the jurisdictional assessing officer for assessment of the other person – Satisfaction note can be prepared at three stages: (a) at the time of initiating proceedings against the searched person under Section 158BC, (b) during the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC, and (c) immediately after the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 158BC – Appeals disposed of with direction to High Courts to reconsider individual cases in light of these observations. [Paras 1-46]

Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Strict Literal Rule – Emphasis on adhering to the literal construction of fiscal statutes – Courts should neither add nor subtract from the language of the statute – Tax statutes should be interpreted strictly, without consideration of equity, logic, or convenience. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Satisfaction Note Timing and Requirement – The Supreme Court holds that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: (a) at the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings against the searched person under Section 158BC; (b) along with the assessment proceedings under Section 158BC; and (c) immediately after the assessment proceedings are completed under Section 158BC of the searched person. Matters remanded to High Courts for reconsideration in light of this interpretation. Appeals disposed of. [Paras 44-46]

Contempt of Court - Maintainability of Petition - Article 129 - Contempt petition filed for alleged non-compliance with Supreme Court judgment affirming High Court's directions to re-designate petitioner and extend pay scales - Supreme Court examines whether petition is maintainable before it or should be filed in the High Court - Held, judgment of High Court merges with Supreme Court's order upon dismissal of appeal - Contempt petition maintainable in High Court - Petitioner directed to approach High Court with contempt petition. [Paras 7-15]

Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Merger - High Court’s judgment affirmed by Supreme Court - Directions of High Court deemed disobeyed - Supreme Court directs petitioner to file contempt petition in High Court - Exercise of Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 129, 136, and 142 - Emphasizes benefit to parties and reduction of docket burden - High Court competent to address contempt arising from its own directions. [Para 14]

Decision - Contempt Petition Directed to High Court - Supreme Court holds that petitioner should file appropriate contempt petition in High Court within two months - High Court to consider and decide on merits - Supreme Court refrains from expressing opinion on merits of contempt petition. Contempt petition disposed of with directions for petitioner to approach High Court for alleged non-compliance. [Para 15-17]

Criminal Law – Special Leave Petition – Maintainability – Criminal M.P. against High Court’s directive for early hearing in a criminal appeal – High Court's order questioned on procedural grounds and lack of urgency by appellants – Supreme Court examines the scope of Article 136 and the extraordinary discretionary power vested in it – Held that the power under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – Dismisses the petition, emphasizing no infringement of appellants' rights by the High Court's order – Criticizes filing of frivolous petitions without substantial grounds. [Paras 1-14]

Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Article 136 of the Constitution – Scope and Application – Reiterated that the Supreme Court's discretionary power under Article 136 is meant for exceptional cases involving questions of law of general public importance or decisions causing grave injustice – Ordinary disputes should be resolved by the High Courts, reserving the Supreme Court's intervention for significant issues. [Paras 7-10]

Frivolous Litigation – Curbing and Costs – Emphasizes the need to deter frivolous litigation – Notes increasing trend of filing trivial cases, wasting judicial time and resources – Urges imposition of exemplary costs on parties and counsel engaging in irresponsible litigation practices – Highlights the role of the Bar in assisting the judiciary to dispense justice efficiently. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Supreme Court dismisses the petition, expressing displeasure over the irresponsible filing and advocacy – Affirms the High Court's procedural order for early hearing of the criminal appeal, finding no violation of appellants' rights. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Principles and Grounds - Criminal Appeal against High Court order granting bail to the respondent accused under Sections 342, 326B, and 506 of IPC - High Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - Appellant contended that the respondent's conduct post-bail was threatening and influenced public safety - Supreme Court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the respondent's behavior post-bail - Held that respondent's actions post-bail justified cancellation of bail - Impugned High Court order set aside, and respondent directed to surrender - Directions issued for early completion of trial. [Paras 1-12]

Seriousness of Offense and Post-Bail Conduct - Analysis - Held - the conduct of the respondent, including threats and criminal intimidation post-bail, was significant - The presence of sulphuric acid confirmed on the complainant’s T-shirt, and the respondent’s threats to repeat the offense indicated a misuse of bail - Supreme Court emphasized the principles from previous judgments on bail cancellation, considering the balance between individual liberty and public safety. [Para 10]

Decision - Cancellation of Bail - Court canceled the bail granted by the High Court, directing the respondent to surrender within two weeks - Emphasized the necessity of a fair trial and the importance of preventing witness intimidation and tampering with evidence - Directions issued for expedited trial. [Para 12]

Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Section 406 CrPC - Transfer petitions filed to consolidate trials of multiple cases pending against petitioners/respondents - Petitioners sought transfer for convenience and to ensure fair trial - Respondents (CBI) raised objections regarding inconvenience to witnesses from various locations.

Convenience and Fair Trial - Considerations for Transfer - Supreme Court noted that most witnesses are doctors or officers working in medical colleges - Ultimate decision-making occurred at ministerial level in Delhi - Held, transfer to a single court in Delhi serves interests and convenience of all parties.

Order - Transfer Allowed - Criminal Case No. 5 of 2013 (CBI v. Dr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal & Ors.) transferred from Special Judge, Anti-Corruption No. 4, CBI, Lucknow to Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House, New Delhi - To be tried with Criminal Case No. 3 of 2012 (CBI v. Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss & Ors.) - Directed early completion of trial upon transfer.

Land Law - Renewal of Grant - Right of Occupation – Appeal against the decision of the High Court dismissing the petition for renewal of land grant – Grant of land made to appellants' predecessor under Regulation 4(1)(b) of the 1926 Regulation, valid for 30 years with an option for renewal for another 30 years – Renewal denied after expiry of the extended period – High Court upheld non-renewal and directed eviction – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants cannot claim indefinite possession based on previous grant – Regulation 211 of 1966 Regulations continues the obligation to surrender possession upon expiry of the grant period – Constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of the same issues – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 18-31]

Constructive Res Judicata – Applicability to Writ Proceedings – Principles of res judicata applicable to writ proceedings – Previous litigation concluded that no renewal or fresh grant permissible – Appellants debarred from re-arguing the right to continue in possession under 1966 Regulations – High Court rightly applied doctrine of constructive res judicata – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 18-21]

Grant of Land – Rights and Liabilities – Appellants classified as grantees under Regulation 144 of 1966 Regulations – Obligation to surrender possession upon expiry of the grant – Continuation of possession beyond granted period not permissible under Regulations – Interpretation sought by appellants to claim perpetual possession untenable – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 24-31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the appellants must surrender possession of the land, and rejecting the claim for perpetual possession under the 1966 Regulations. [Paras 31-32]

Service Law - Recruitment Policy – Termination and Regularization – Appeals challenging the directions of the Madras High Court regarding recruitment and regularization of Computer Instructors – Supreme Court holds that recruitment to the 652 vacant posts shall be based on employment exchange seniority – State Government directed to adhere to the clarification given by the Supreme Court's order dated 19.11.2009 – Held that the High Court's directions (vi) and (vii) of para 53 of the impugned order are set aside. [Paras 1-27]

Recruitment Policy - Employment Exchange Seniority vs. Open Competitive Examination – Analysis – Supreme Court reaffirms that the remaining vacancies should be filled based on the employment exchange seniority due to the peculiar facts of the case, ensuring fairness to both existing instructors and qualified candidates awaiting appointment – State Government's policy change and the applicability of G.O. No. 296 dated 04.12.2013 discussed and found not justifiable to deviate from the earlier judicial directions. [Paras 14-27]

Decision – Recruitment Process Clarified – The Supreme Court directs the State Government to fill up the 652 vacant posts of Computer Instructors based on the employment exchange seniority as per its previous order dated 19.11.2009 – High Court's contrary directions set aside to prevent inconsistencies in recruitment policy enforcement. [Paras 24-27]

Arbitration - Tenancy Disputes - Applicability of Arbitration Clause - Civil Appeal arising out of tenancy dispute involving eviction and other reliefs - Appellants, landlords, served notice to terminate tenancy and sought eviction - Respondents invoked arbitration clause in tenancy agreement - Civil Judge dismissed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - High Court referred dispute to arbitration - Supreme Court set aside High Court’s decision - Held, arbitration clause cannot override statutory provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which confer exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Judge for eviction suits - Arbitration not applicable in disputes covered by statutory tenancy protections - Appeal allowed, matter remanded to Civil Judge for trial. [Paras 1-15]

Jurisdiction - Statutory Bar on Arbitration - Analysis - Held, Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, provides exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Judge for eviction suits - Arbitration clause in tenancy agreement overridden by statutory provisions - Similar statutory bars in other tenancy laws reaffirmed - Public policy considerations prevent arbitration in tenancy disputes where statutory protection exists - Referred past judgments distinguishing arbitration in commercial disputes and tenancy disputes. [Paras 6-14]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court’s decision to refer matter to arbitration set aside - Matter remanded to Civil Judge for trial - No order as to costs considering peculiar facts of the case. [Para 15]

Contempt of Court - Regularization of Service – Appeal against High Court's order in contempt proceedings – 445 daily rated employees sought regularization through writ petitions – High Court's order granting regularization affirmed, and special leave petitions by State dismissed – State's partial compliance resulted in non-regularization of 74 respondents – Contempt proceedings initiated – High Court directed compliance within two weeks – Supreme Court considers sequence of events, including previous orders and compliance by State – Held that respondents' cases can be decided on principles of parity as similarly situated employees had been regularized – Appellants not liable for contempt but obligated to regularize respondents within two months. [Paras 1-9]

Principle of Parity - Regularization - Applicability – Supreme Court emphasizes regularization based on parity principle – Notes that similarly situated employees had been regularized, including some after the Umadevi judgment – Finds refusal to regularize respondents unjustified – Orders State to regularize services of the 74 respondents within two months. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Compliance with Previous Orders – Supreme Court disposes of the appeal – Directs the State to regularize the services of 74 respondents promptly – No contempt liability due to State's interpretation of the Umadevi judgment but mandates compliance within a specified period. [Paras 8-9]